For many Americans, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which makes health insurance mandatory, is a bitter pill to swallow. But after the Supreme Court upheld what is now popularly called ‘Obamacare‘ on June 28, Switzerland’s media greeted the decision as “a victory for common sense.”

Why should Americans listen to the Swiss? Because Switzerland’s healthcare model successfully delivers much of what the U.S is trying to achieve: universal coverage through mandatory private insurance. Unlike most European countries, the Swiss don’t have socialized medicine, though the government regulates the insurance industry and defines what health services must be offered — a generous package that includes doctor’s visits, hospital stays, medications, physical therapy, physician-ordered rehabilitation, and in-home nursing care. Under this law, which went into effect in 1996 to provide equal access to healthcare, everyone has to purchase a plan from one of 92 insurers. Employers don’t provide insurance, so people are free to shop around for coverage that fits their needs and not feel obligated to stay in a job solely for the health benefits it offers.

Depending on the deductible, the monthly premium for this basic package averages about $300 for adults, plus some co-pays, but it can’t exceed 8% of personal income; if it does, the government subsidizes the cost. (For comparison sake, the Kaiser Family Foundation reports that in 2011, employer-sponsored health insurance in the U.S. was $5,429 for what it designates as “single coverage” and $15,9073 for “family coverage.”) Currently, roughly one-third of Swiss households — mainly single-parent families and immigrants — get some form of subsidy. Patients can choose any physician and there’s no wait to see specialists or have surgery. Insurers can’t turn anyone down or delay coverage due to age, medical history, or health risks. They are also not allowed to profit from the obligatory insurance but can make money on the optional supplemental coverage that includes alternative medicine and private hospital rooms.

So far, the system is running as smoothly as a Swiss watch and the patient satisfaction rate is high. In a 2010 Deloitte survey, more than half of Swiss respondents praised their healthcare system, compared to 21% to 43% of Americans, Britons and Canadians. In fact, grumbling about having to buy insurance is non-existent in Switzerland. At least part of the compliance may be cultural: the Swiss are extremely risk-averse and want to be insured if an illness or another calamity strikes. Today, 99% of the population is insured and when it comes to residents who aren’t — mostly new immigrants — the government can buy a health plan on their behalf and send them the bill.

“Switzerland’s system is superb: consumer-driven, cost-effective, and equitably distributed,” says Regina Herzlinger, a Harvard Business School professor who has studied the Swiss model extensively. “For quality care, patient satisfaction, and chronic disease management and prevention, the Swiss come out on top.” Indeed, Switzerland’s population is among the healthiest in the world. According to United Nations, they have the second-highest life expectancy in the world, while the United States lags behind in the 38th place, proving, perhaps, that the highest price tag — nearly $8,000 per person in healthcare spending each year in the U.S. — doesn’t guarantee the best or most equitable care.

Switzerland’s healthcare spending isn’t cheap either — it costs nearly $5,350 per resident. But while costs here have risen by roughly 3.5% for the past two years — reflected in annual premium hikes — an analysis conducted in 2010 by Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found that out of 29 countries it studied, Switzerland was among the most effective in getting better health outcomes for money spent. There are several reasons why Switzerland manages to control spending while keeping its population healthy: universal coverage reduces the need, and therefore the cost, for emergency room visits for non-urgent complaints, and the government regulates drug prices and fees for medical tests.

So is Switzerland a useful model for the U.S.? “The Swiss are among the wealthiest and most market-oriented people, and it’s not surprising that America should come up with a system much like theirs,” says Timothy S. Jost, professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law and expert on comparative health policy. Obamacare has many similarities with the Swiss system — like individual mandates and competition among private insurers — but there are also differences, Jost says. “Prices and benefit coverage are more highly regulated in Switzerland. Also, the U.S. system remains primarily employer-based and the Swiss isn’t.”

During the end of the day, while some will accuse Republicans of just performing partisan politics with their repeated attempts to repeal that the PPACA, some deeper look into their true American sentiment about that the new law tells a different story. Now it doesn't mean that America can't get this right, but generally there must stay a lengthy tough look at what we are trying to achieve here making sure their approach we are taking will get us in order to where we want to be because the nation. The way things look now, it doesn't appear that this law started down the correct path, but let us hope we can easily steer their ship right back upon course for everyone's sake. http://www.primeblog.us/2013/07/bulletproof-athlete.html

My first message was censored, so let me try this again: The claim that Swiss people "love" the socialist healthcare system we now have is a joke!

If anyone tried to run a poll asking that question, the pollster would have to do a lot of running - away from people trying to hit him.

Making health insurance mandatory was a total, abysmal failure!

The justification for this totally unnecessary change was to "reduce the costs". Of course it achieved the exact opposite: costs increased exponentially!

+800% in just 16 years!

Before 1996, I could buy full healthcare coverage for 60 CHF per month. Now I pay almost 650 CHF for 2 adults and 1 baby - with the maximum deductible of 2'000 CHF per person and per year.

It's really a 650 CHF TAX on me and my family, as we practically never spend more than 2'000 CHF per year.

I absolutely HATE this system and so do 95% of the Swiss people, which is why there are constant reforms and attempts to fundamentally change the system. The only reason it hasn't been killed yet is because no one agrees on what to replace it with.

I'd suggest to use the Singapore model: private healthcare savings accounts with only catastrophic health insurance for exceptionally expensive or chronic operations covered by insurance.

I don't think it matters, the tea party and the heritage foundation will spin numbers

because even if there is a "government solution" they won't believe it , much like a muslim won't believe jesus is the son of god, instead they will insist you are not a conservative and a "libtard" and your idea won't work because there is no solution, only capitalism and let alone will work wonders, the tea party movement is not really interested in finding proper solutions or even debating the merits rather lower taxes.

All this points out why I like Wisconsin's Badger Care program for low income people. I am even glad about the $92. a month (based on my income as a self employed person) state backed insurance program. Originally started as a bipartisan insurance program several years ago, and oddly enough Scott Walker, has kept it going. Now if they covered dentist bills too ...

I don't get what people don't understand about strict constitutionalism conservative in America. We follow a system of federalism and there fore the responsibility or choice of government intervention in the health care market is up to the states. The states dominated with liberal populations can set up their government intervened health care systems while the ones with more conservative will not. Why the need to amalgamate all close to 400 million people living in the US to one system? Why compare a country that has states with bigger populations than the countries with the government intervened systems? I find it highly arrogant that those who want this giant health care system placed on everyone think they know what is best for everyone.

Hey idiots and parrots, we know the U.S is no Switzerland, so thanks for the geography lesson! BUT, maybe, perhaps other countries have something to teach us about keeping their citizens medically covered and healthy?

Perhaps we can learn to control pharmaceutical companies to the benefit of society?

Maybe we can keep medical treatment from bankrupting households?

No? You people are unreal.Now what the hell does that have to do with Obama-care?

I guess Helena Bachmann must have missed the part where the Supreme Court found Obamacare's individual mandate to purchase health insurance, as is required of Swiss subjects, was unconstitutional, and that it was the tax on "going without insurance" that was upheld. Much as progressives would prefer a central government to rule over the masses - as the Swiss masses are ruled - this ain't Europe, this ain't Canada, and this ain't the Soviet Union. This is America

Then move to Switzerland Ms. Bachmann and if you’re already a citizen I'm very happy for you. I know Switzerland, I like Switzerland but Switzerland is no United States of America Ms. Bachmann. Pass that word along to Mr. Obama if you would. Thank you..

The population of Switzerland is about 8 million people, compared to the US 300 million plus spread among 50 states and US territories. The Swiss healthcare system sounds absolutely NOTHING like Obamacare.

There are a few facts missing from this article. Switzerland has a population of only 8 million, 1.7 million immigrants. Yearly income 70,000. Country revenues 222 billion. Country expenses 216 billion. Hardly comparable to the USA with 16 trillion debt and only 47% of workers pay taxes. Unemployment 9% and Obama just started registering another 2 million illegal immigrants. Ah what the heck, free healthcare for all.

Here are a few facts left out of the article. Population of Switzerland, 8 million. Per capita income 70,000 per year. Country revenues 222 billion per year. Country expenses 216 billion per year. Of the 8 million residents only 1.7 million are immigrants. Hardly comparable to The USA and our 16 trillion in debt and only half the workers pay taxes.

I suspect a difference also is the culture of greed here in the USA. Doctors become millionaires, billions are made by the hospitals, drug companies, drug store chains and in some areas pharmacists have a starting wage higher than starting MDs. Then throw on top of that the billions made by the insurance industry. Too many people making too much money before the patient is even cared for to have affordable health care in the USA. It can't be done with so many pigs being fed.

It's alot easier for Switzerland to manage coverage for 8 million people than it is for the US to manage coverage for 311 million. And telling companies they cannot operate at a profit is counter to the American way.

Just one really quick question, how many major health care products have been invented in Switzerland? Really if they control drug prices do they control the cost of creating the new drug? Or do the just depend on other free markets to create all the drugs that their country uses.

The Singapore model, where everyone has to bear part of the cost of treatment up to the level where they can't afford it, implies that they spend only 4% of their GDP on healthcare, yet they have an average life span of 82 years, almost a world record and about 1 year longer than in Switzerland!

So we overspend by about 7% of our GDP, because we adopted an idiotic socialist system...

I don't know what exactly happened to you, but I can tell you I was treated in both USA and Switzerland, had outpatient surgeries in both countries, and found Swiss care vastly superior, more humane, and much less expensive.

You don't really grasp the political system of Switzerland, do you? Pointing out that the US follows a system of federalism is admitting that you know nothing about Swiss cantons. Incidentally: Inhabitants of the Canton of Zurich: Over 1.3 Million. Just under double that of North Dakota. Inhabitants of the Canton of Berne: 974,000 - just shy of Montana.

I find it highly arrogant that some people believe they can make human sacrifices on the altar of their ideology. And I find it nauseating when these people adorn themselves with attitudes such as pro-life, Christian and all the other designations they carry like a monstrance in front of them but spit on from the back. I find it highly arrogant when these people believe that for the sake of their political ideology, they need not bother themselves with empiricism, or with the fact that the US has a childbed mortality rate that befits a developing nation.

This has nothing to do with constitutionalism, or with the values of the founding fathers. The founding fathers declared life an unalienable right and he who believes that people should rather die than he budge one iota from his ideology are stripping people of their right to life by the thousands each year.

@flyovermark I'm laughing out loud. To say that the Swiss are ruled by their government proves only that you have no clue what you're talking about. Switzerland is one of the very few pure democracies. Any individual can intervene directly on any issue simply by starting a petition and gathering enough signatures. With enough signatures, a national vote is mandatory. So it's exactly the opposite - the masses rule the government.

And now ObamaCare wants to add another layer of govt $200K/yr bureaucrats -- appointed by their friends, who do not participate in ObamaCare. There is a good reason Congress and the Executive dept. are not included in ObamaCare -- it sucks.

" And telling companies they cannot operate at a profit is counter to the American way."

Not really... it just means that insurance companies would become, roughly, the equivalent of many public utilities, which are usually regulated on how much profit they can make through their base product (eg, natural gas). Those same companies can open non-regulated subsidiaries that operate in ancillary businesses (eg, sale and repair of furnaces) to prop up the bottom line.

Just because it's counter to the "American way" doesn't make it wrong. The American way screwed up the healthcare system in the U.S. There's nothing wrong in foregoing profits for the good of the people. And anyway, no need to feel sorry for insurance companies, they still make plenty of money on supplemental insurance.

Two of the five largest pharmaceutical companies in the world are based in Switzerland -- the same number as are based in the US (the fifth one is English). Their products include Valium, Tamiflu, Klonopin, Diovan, Ritalin, Lamisil and a few others that a lot of people in the US are taking.

Roche is a Swiss pharmaceutical company, one of the largest in the world. You can look at their website to see how many medications they produce and export to the USA. So is Novartis - if you have a flu shot every year, chances are they manufacture it. Do you consider hearing aids "healthcare" products? If so, world's best hearing devices are produced in Switzerland. They also pioneered many hi-tech surgical procedures.

'immigration' does not equal illegal immigration. I hope you know that. There is a difference and illegal 'immigration' is a very misleading term. The actual definition is 'illegal alien' because, legally speaking, they're technically not immigrants.

Thanks for sharing your opinion, but others have ones the opposite of your's and are just as valid. That's the deal with freedom and opinions. We're all free to believe what we want to. You think one way, others think another. We're both right for ourselves...the issue becomes sticky when you want to legislate your opinion upon someone else.

Agreed. I've always thought it was slimy that we've turned health care into an industry. We're deliberately profiting from sick people. That's disgusting. And I agree with you that the health care industry could still make lots of money from supplemental insurance, definitely not as much as they make now, but as someone else pointed out there are too many pigs at the trough.

What matters is where these leading pharmaceutical companies make their profits, not where they are "headquartered."

And the reality is that the profits available in the United States drives much of biomedical innovation. Canada, Australia, and Western Europe would not enjoy the same high level of medical care if the US did not exist.

If you want to look where Roche is truely "located" it is the US. Valium was invented in New Jersey. Tamiflu was created by Gilead sciences of the US. With multi national companies we all know that it is very difficult to actually nail down were there are from. I bet both of those pharmaceutical companies would change headquarters to a country that offered a large enough tax cut. The point is that no company is going to put all of the money into research and delvolpment into a new product and not be able to make their money back. and that includes pharmaceuticals. Also almost all research done for the Flu shots have been done by Universities in the United States.

Even then you miss the point that the sell there products in the US, if they didn't, they wouldn't have the profits to continue to develop new drugs.

Why don't you go to Basel. or Grenzach on the German side, and actually have a look? There's plenty of research going on there. For that matter, Novartis also has a research institute there which is the hub of a network operating internationally.

But back to Roche, it is actually a holding for two companies, a pharmaceutical one and a diagnostic one - and plenty of the diagnostics work is also happening in Switzerland.